In a significant pronouncement on digital privacy, the Delhi High Court held that once criminal proceedings are quashed, the continued online availability of such orders serves no public interest and infringes the right to privacy under Article 21, which encompasses the right to be forgotten. The Court directed the Registrar General to mask identity markers in two quashed criminal orders and permitted the petitioner to host masked versions on third-party platforms.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, husband of a woman who died on 31.12.2019, challenged the continued public accessibility of two criminal orders that had been quashed by the Court. The orders related to FIR No. 13/2020 (registered at the instance of the deceased’s sister) and FIR No. 464/2020 (registered at the instance of the deceased’s father). The petitioner contended that their availability on internet portals and search engines caused harassment to his minor son and family members, despite the criminal proceedings having been terminated.
Key Facts
- The deceased wife of the petitioner died on 31.12.2019.
- FIR No. 13/2020 under IPC sections 498A/306/201/34 was registered at the instance of the deceased’s sister; the exact date of registration is not specified in the judgment but the FIR bears the year 2020.
- FIR No. 464/2020 under IPC sections 420/467/471 was registered at the instance of the deceased’s father; again, the exact date is not specified but the FIR bears the year 2020.
- The order quashing FIR No. 13/2020 (Crl.M.C. 1732/2021) was passed on 07.09.2021.
- The order quashing FIR No. 464/2020 (Crl.M.C. 1057/2021) was passed on 13.05.2021 on the ground of settlement between the parties.
- The petitioner’s minor son and other family members faced undue harassment due to the orders being readily available on the internet and third-party portals.
- The Court had previously addressed a similar issue in ABC v. State : 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8113, where it directed masking of the petitioner’s name and emphasised that the right to privacy includes the right to be forgotten.
Procedural History
- The present writ petition (W.P.(C) 15503/2026) was filed before the High Court of Delhi.
- Concurrently, CM APPL. 72763/2026 and CM APPL. 72764/2026 were filed.
- The Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 16 October 2026.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- A direction to the Respondent to mask/remove identity markers in the orders dated 07.09.2021 (Crl.M.C. 1732/2021) and 13.05.2021 (Crl.M.C. 1057/2021).
- Permission to approach all concerned third-party portals, intermediaries or public search engines to host the masked version of the said orders.
- Any other appropriate writ/order/direction.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether, after criminal proceedings have been quashed, the continued online publication of the quashed orders serves a public interest or violates the petitioner’s right to privacy under Article 21, particularly the right to be forgotten, and whether the Court can direct the masking of identity markers in such orders and permit their masked publication on third-party platforms.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner, through Mr. Madhav Khurana, Sr. Adv. and team, argued that once the FIRs were quashed, the criminal proceedings stood terminated and there was no legitimate public interest in keeping the orders accessible online. Reliance was placed on ABC v. State : 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8113 to assert that the right to privacy under Article 21 includes the right to be forgotten. It was contended that the continued availability of the orders caused harassment to the petitioner’s family, especially his minor son, and thus amounted to a violation of Article 21. The petitioner further submitted that directing the masking of identity markers and allowing the hosting of masked versions would balance the right to information with the right to privacy.
For the Respondent
The Respondent, represented by Mr. Saurabh Seth, PC DHC and team, likely defended the orders as public judicial records and emphasized the principle of open justice and the public’s right to access court documents. Specific counter-arguments are not explicitly detailed in the judgment, but the implicit stance was that the orders should remain accessible unless a compelling legal ground for restriction is shown.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by affirming that the right to privacy is a fundamental right intrinsic to Article 21 of the Constitution. It observed that the concept of right to privacy incorporates the right to be forgotten. The Court noted:
"There is no reason why an individual who has been duly cleared of any guilt by law should be allowed to be haunted by the remnants of such accusations easily accessible to the public." It further held that in the age of the internet, information once uploaded gains permanence, and therefore the need to allow masking of names of acquitted persons or those against whom proceedings have been quashed arises from basic notions of proportionality and fairness. The Court balanced the public’s right to information against the individual’s right to privacy, concluding that after the quashing of the proceedings, no public interest could be served by keeping the information alive on the internet. Drawing from its earlier decision in ABC v. State, the Court concluded that directing the masking of identity markers in the two quashed orders was a proportionate measure to protect the petitioner’s right to privacy while not completely denying access to the orders, as masked versions could be made available.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court directed the Respondent (High Court of Delhi through the LD Registrar General) to mask/remove the identity markers in the order dated 07.09.2021 passed in Crl.M.C. 1732/2021 and the order dated 13.05.2021 passed in Crl.M.C. 1057/2021, as detailed in Ground C of the petition. Additionally, the petitioner was permitted to approach all concerned third-party portals, public search engines or intermediaries to host the masked version of the said orders, including any other material pertaining to the proceedings wherein the names and identity markers are reflected. The Court further directed that whenever the petitioner approaches any search engine, third-party portal or intermediary, they shall follow the principle of ‘right to be forgotten’ and mask any other material on record pertaining to the aforementioned cases. The present petition along with the pending applications were disposed of with these directions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Right to Be Forgotten Recognised as Part of Article 21
The judgment unequivocally treats the right to be forgotten as a facet of the right to privacy under Article 21. Practitioners can now invoke this principle in cases where criminal proceedings have been terminated (by acquittal, discharge, quashing or settlement) and the continued online availability of related records causes harassment or stigma.
Balancing Test for Masking Orders
Courts are to apply a proportionality test: weigh the public’s right to access judicial records against the individual’s right to privacy and the absence of any lingering public interest in the publication of quashed proceedings. Masking identity markers, rather than outright removal, is a permissible middle-ground measure.
Practical Steps for Relief
Petitioners seeking similar relief should:
- Demonstrate that the criminal proceedings have been lawfully terminated.
- Show that the continued online accessibility of the orders serves no public interest and causes actual or apprehended harm (e.g., harassment, social stigma).
- Request masking of specific identity markers (names, case numbers, etc.) rather than a blanket ban on access.
- Offer to host or facilitate the hosting of masked versions on third-party platforms to preserve limited access for legitimate research or judicial purposes.
